What about junk debt buyers who buy old judgments? Does the FDCPA protect judgment debtors from judgment creditors?

Logged

Finally a collector admits it...

"The reality is that there are people who can't pay and the job of an agency in my opinion is to separate those who can and those who cant and to not waste resources and efforts on those who cant." -- Dr. Evil.

All this nonsense about aggressive judgment enforcement against someone with no assets is just that-- utter nonsense.

Yes, the FDCPA would protect you. If the SOL for the judgment has expired, they are SOL, too.

Another thing to remember: When a judgment is involved, and you are living in a state other than the one it was filed in, they have to domesticate it in the state where you are living now, if it has not already been done.

And, the judgment has to still be "live" in the originating state to be able to domesticate it in another.

And, the new state's SOL for judgments must not have "run", too, for it to be filable and subsequently collectable.

Another set of complications--for them--which is often not taken care of properly.Too expensive for a JDB to usually do so.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2006 01:11:47 AM by Rottweiler »

Logged

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."~ Olver Wendell Holmes

I had Credigy try to dissmiss my counterclaims because they believe because they bought the debt they are not bound by the FDCPA. I used the following to beat them.

Quote

It is well established that debt buyers are bound by the FDCPA. Plaintiff is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA.a. “In our view, a party that purchases delinquent accounts from the party to which the debts were originally owed and attempts to collect them from the consumer debtors fits clearly within that definition [of the FDCPA].” FDCPA Staff Opinion: Brinckerhoff-Arbuckle – dated December 22,1993

b. “In sum, it is our view that a party that obtains consumer obligations in default for the purpose of collection is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, even if that party actually purchases the accounts from the original creditor.” Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (M.D.Ala. 1987). Accord, Holmes, supra, at 1293.

You don't need that case law to establish any JDB as a "Debt Collector" - just look at the law itself and the originnal post in this thread. It doesn't matter what the JDB says - only what the law says. If they reported false information to the CRA then you have a FCRA violation as well as a FDCPA violation.

The act of purchasing a debt is not collection activity, nor is the act of selling a debt collection activity because neither act is an attempt to get paid by the debtor, nor is it in and of itself communication about the debt with the debtor.

My JDB says/reports that the previous JDB is a creditor and also the Original Creditor.

They reported to CRAs that JDB #1 is THE OC, even though it was purchased already in default.

Anyone have a case/caselaw that says the mere act of buying defaulted debt, in absense of any collection activity, is in itself a collection activity, therefore making the JDB #1 a debt collector?

I do not believe the rabbit trail of purchase being collection activity is one worth pursuing. Focus your energies on the other potential arguments. Rationale- although one could certainly argue that the business practice of purchasing a defaulted debt carries with it an intent to engage in collection activity, the reality is that until they move beyond the purchase, that entity has not taken steps that involve you in the collection process. Outside of those labeled as perpetrators of terrorism, we generally do not sanction potential future actions, not withstanding one of the northern states that locked someone up for writing about future sex offenses.

In this instance, it appears that JDB #1 was not the one that reported the matter, which means that you need to look at the entity that they either placed the debt with or that they sold it off to.

Focus on the issues that allow for prompt resolution and that don't lead you into rabbit trails that make it easier for a judge to chuck anything you might file.

As for Uncle Normie's? If the debt is sold by the seller WITHOUT any collection activity having taken place while they owned it, there was no requirement to validate. Sec. 809 of the FDCPA comes into play ONLY once the collection process has begun.

That is where centex is actually right on the money: If the previous owner did not attempt to collect, they are not a party to the action! One has to deal with the ones that actually tried to collect...not an intermediary who did not. The ONLY place that this non-collecting intermediary is going to be involved would be in establishing that chain of assignment (title)...a potential witness only, NOT a real party in interest. Ever.

As for a JDB that does not collect on a debt portfolio prior to selling it? We call them...a (junk) debt buyer. Not all (junk) debt buyers actually collect on the portfolios they buy: Some repackage them...they are resellers! In fact, it's this level of debt buyer that is often the first to buy the stuff, so they are the direct contact with the OCs. The one after you may be further down the line, which is why the chain of assignment (title) is attacked when these outfits sue...and why the evidence that might prove the case is usually AWOL by the time one is sued even if it came with the package originally.

Logged

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."~ Olver Wendell Holmes

It's irrelevant whether or not collection activity took place prior to a JDB selling an account. Selling the account is not, directly or indirectly, an attempt to collect a debt.

I think the courts reasoning in Neff makes that clear:

Capital One was not a debt collector when it sold Neff's account to CAMCO. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) defining a "debt collector" as any person who "regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another."). In selling its asset, Capital One did not directly or indirectly attempt to collect Neff's debt. From the moment it sold Neff's account, it was irrelevant to Capital One whether Neff's account was collected or not. Capital One retained no ownership interest in Neff's debt and CAMCO was not acting as its collection agency. Thus, on just a facial reading of the statute, Capital One was not a debt collector

Logged

I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances. My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.